* Tore Anderson
> I'm reluctant to vote for a resolution that acknowledges that the
> changes made to the social contract were anything but editorial.
* Manoj Srivastava
> As an author of one of these proposals, and as an individual
> who still holds that the changes made in GR 2004_003 were
> editorial in nature, I have this to say: despite what you or I
> believe as individuals about the nature of the language chages in the
> previous GR, we are in the current GR process because the release
> policy changed.
> The current proposal merely acknowledges the reality that
> things changed: prior to the GR, we were on our way to releasing
> sarge; post gr 2004 003, we are not.
> I don't think we can bury our heads in the sand and pretend
> nothing changed -- whether or not we believe anything should have
Hmm. Even though I think your proposal seems like a tool not entirely
fit for the job at hand, I find your reasoning persuasive. It might
just do the job anyway.
For what it's worth I think the new foundation document your proposal
introduces will be useful outside the scope of this particular issue.
In all likelyhood, I will rank it above the other proposals that are
currently slated for inclusion on the ballot.